Home | About | Donate

Want News on Big Money in Politics? Don't Look to Major Media Networks


#1


#2

The article fails to discuss another major problem with campaign finance, namely how the money is spent. The self-same media that people seem to expect to investigate campaign $ corruption are its major downstream beneficiaries.

Do the reformers expect the media to bite the hand that feeds it? Do they expect the media to valiantly refuse the billions that they get from the big money interests? Is it any wonder that they equate campaign cash with political legitimacy?

The wealthy rule and the rest of us are screwed coming and going.


#3

The big money is in whoring for the elite. That's asking whores to turn on their pimps. Honest reporting is not only not entertaining (just what is the state of Brittney Spears's panties these days anyhow?), it will lose boatloads of money. If you don't have an alternative source of information, forget about seeing honest reporting on campaign finance in the major "news" outlets. And, if you watch Fox "News", you know even less than people who know absolutely nothing.


#4

You nailed it, fairley7.

A friend who works for a big city daily newspaper told me that his employer would have been out of business 5 years ago if not for campaign advertising revenue every other year. His company turns a profit during election years and looses money in other years.


#5

Begging the oligarchy media to publish against their own best interests will have predictable results, none. Having a binding referendum to restore the Fairness Doctrine and remove their broadcast license if they don't report all sides and all issues would have positive results.


#6

Excellent! The only problem is that the people who could set up this binding referendum are owned by the same people that owns the media (and damned near everything else). The 0.001% are not about to do anything "fair" unless it results in greater profits than they are now extorting er, earning.
;-})


#7

Actually, the Constitution allows the people to petition the government for grievances. We can wait for politicians to put themselves out of business by doing what the public majority wants. Or we can take the initiative like the Swiss and Scandinavians do and have initiatives and referendums by collecting signatures. We are simply not used to doing that. Instead we defer to politicians and reach a dead end.

California has referendums, though not enough to prevent oligarchs from spending big money publicity to defeat them. But the oligarchy would find it prohibitively difficult to defeat numerous continual referendums on the many public grievances that exist.


#8

Missed It Again.

Big Media is about Manufacturing Consent, It IS the medium of Propaganda.

It doesn't matter whether is is Campaign Finance, TSA, NSA, Corruption, Pentagon, Police Violence, whatever the topic is.....

Big Media IS the Spin Machine, not the Journalistic Protector of the Fourth Estate.

Get that stuck to the front of your forehead, and you'll never listen to it the same way again.

The number of spineless reporters that fail to ask the elephant size followup question. Or the Desk Anchor that leaves an utterly stupid premise unchallenged.

Look to the misdirection for the truth, or "follow the money" as the case may be.


#9

The media makes its profits off of advertising. They are in the advertising business and not the news business,The same industries that pay the media all of those billions of dollars a year in order to advertise their product are the ones that want to relax campiagn finance laws so as to increase influence when seeking to enhance profits through Governmnet Policy.

There no mystery here as to why this happens.


#10

And again, I'll place this comment out there, though CD keeps erasing this post.

All this talk about NSA listening to everything, is indeed important.

I want to know what they are transmitting.

What active programs is the NSA/FBI using to seed disinformation into the media, spin the truth, and train the population into specific actions?


#11

Great post. As for Britney's panties; they are stateless actors, terrifying and should be considered dangerous. " If you see something, say something ", to Britney at least. She really might not know there's no there, there. Or, she may have let Kaitlyn borrow them until the big checks start rolling in. Whatever you do, don't shout out, " Hey, Kaitlin, grow a pair! " The lady has definitely " been there, done that. "


#12

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
-Upton Sinclair


#13

One of the problems is that, in Washington at least, we work out buns off with petitions and get out the vote canvases, pass initiatives by 65-70% or more and if the State Legislature doesn't like the result, they get a guy in a black robe to throw it out.
* This has happened many times in the past couple of decades that I know of.
* I think it is having the desired effect, as many of the people who worked so hard don't anymore. I think it is, "Ye gods! I've worked my butt off on three or four initiatives. We get them passed and our alleged representatives tear them up and throw them away. Why bother?"
* The Corporate State wins again.
;-})


#14

Big corporations, including big media, have a nice racket going on - they fleece the public of their taxes in the form of subsidies; they give the subsidies back to politicians in the form of bribes...err, I mean campaign contributions and payoffs to super packs...; then the politicians launder the money by paying the media giants for advertising.


#15

I hope this helps:

The National Initiative for Democracy (NI4D) is a proposed constitutional amendment (Democracy Amendment) which recognizes the people's right to make laws at the local, state and federal level of every jurisdiction in the country and a federal law (Democracy Act) which spells out orderly procedures for the people to develop and vote on laws.


#16

That sounds good, but I wish that, when amendments are proposed, that they would get two bills we could get no sponsor for. They could have solved many of our problems.
* We noted over many years that politicians often have no idea what they are voting for. They can't be bothered to read the bills, they are too busy campaigning. Their staff gets their marching orders from the lobbyists, and they may not even know what the bill is, but they do as the lobbyist says and advise their Senator or Congressman to make a yes or no vote on bill number "X" and so they do. We called it the "Read the Bills Act." It was simple, all that was necessary was for the official to read the bill, then certify that he had read and understood it, before the vote.
* The second bill was the No Riders Bill. This bill stated that all bills must be on one subject. Any amendments proposed must be directly related to the bill under discussion. No riders to be attached to any bill. If it is important enough to be added as a rider, it is important enough for its own bill and debate.
* This should eliminate those NY Phone Book sized bills that have riders for every pork barrel scheme or NSA scam coming down the pike. It would also greatly facilitate the Read the Bills act above.
* It would also eliminate the problem of a good bill not being voted for because of a load of deadly riders.
* We could get no sponsors for that one either. I guess it was a reluctance to wind up with a loss of pork.
* I wonder if the NI4D would take that one on for a project. It would certainly solve a lot of problems, and also get the greedy pork barrel senators and congressmen out of the game. No pork, no game!
;-})


#17

It is absurd to even think that the major networks would jeopardize the ideal situation they find themselves in by shining a light on Big Money influence in our elections. They are not about to kill the golden goose that is laying all those lovely golden eggs for them.
If the message is ever to get out, it would have to be in the form of a hilariously funny video like the commercials we see during the Superbowl such that people start sending it to everyone they know online to watch. Several million views later, everyone will have shared a laugh and got educated at the same time.


#18

Let us not forget that every one of these "Big Media" monopolies of information has an in house Department of the CIA right there on site, 24/7, which proof reads, edits, filters, "Vets" (check, examine, scrutinize, investigate, inspect, look over, screen, assess, evaluate, appraise) any and all that they release as "News"- Talk about totalitarianism- There you go, we got it.....


#19

Major error here folks!

You can't write letters to Mainstream Media Corporations! There's nobody home. If you want to talk to the boss, you must write your letters to the CIA. They are the ones via Operation Mockingbird, just like the KGB of old, who decides what goes up on the Boob Tube.

wiki says:

Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.

In addition to earlier exposés of CIA activities in foreign affairs, in 1966, Ramparts magazine published an article revealing that the National Student Association was funded by the CIA. The United States Congress investigated the allegations and published a report in 1976. Other accounts were also published. The media operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis's 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and her Washington Post Empire.[citation needed]

Contents [hide]
1 History
1.1 Directorate for Plans
1.2 Guatemala
1.3 First exposure
1.4 Church Committee investigations
1.5 "Family Jewels" report
2 See also
3 Further reading
4 References
5 External links
History[edit]
In 1948, Frank Wisner was appointed director of the Office of Special Projects (OSP). Soon afterwards, OSP was renamed the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC), which became the CIA's covert action branch. Wisner was told to create an organization that concentrated on "propaganda, economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world".[1] Later that year, Wisner established Mockingbird, a program to influence foreign media. Wisner recruited Philip Graham from The Washington Post to run the project within the industry. According to Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great, "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."[2]

In 1951, Allen W. Dulles persuaded Cord Meyer to join the CIA. However, there is evidence that he was recruited several years earlier and had been spying on the liberal internationalist organizations he had been a member of in the late 1940s.[3] According to Deborah Davis, Meyer became Mockingbird's "principal operative."[4]

"I’m proud they asked me and proud to have done it" - Joseph Alsop [5]
After 1953, the network was overseen by CIA Director Allen Dulles, by which time Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services. These networks were run by people with well-known liberal but pro-American big business and anti-Soviet views such as William S. Paley (CBS), Henry Luce (Time and Life Magazine), Arthur Hays Sulzberger (New York Times), Alfred Friendly (managing editor of the Washington Post), Jerry O'Leary (Washington Star), Hal Hendrix (Miami News), Barry Bingham, Sr. (Louisville Courier-Journal), James Copley (Copley News Services) and Joseph Harrison (Christian Science Monitor).[6]

The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was funded by siphoning off funds intended for the Marshall Plan. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers...

"siphon[ed] off funds intended for the Marshall Plan." Now that's what I call reconstruction! grimacing

You think this sort of thing just goes on overseas?

You call this a Democracy?????


#20

My first take is remembering how Reagan stuck the media in his pocket. How we were told over and over about how much we were changing into what his group wanted. Since that period it's blatantly obvious the people at the networks really enjoy their money and are simply refusing to have real news bureaus. Personality is really what they sell. My solution for years has been to simply ignore almost all of it. I got better television news from Mexico City during the 1980s when I lived in San Diego and Reagan and crew were starting the fascist soft focus of real information which now is right there nightly. As singer Don Henley wrote at the time: "I could have been an actor, but I wound up here," Includes both the politicians and their friends, the "press."